A Realistic View of 2023: Part II

[Duran Is The Man]

Well, it's certainly a controversial stat/topic, so you are entitled to that opinion.

 

But that leads me to two contrarian points.

 

First and foremost, it is hard for me to believe all catchers are basically equal in working with pitchers. You have to say that if you think CERA is bs.

 

And my second point is strongly related. Who do you think the pitchers on the Sox prefer catching them--Wong or McGuire or Alfaro? Or, best of all, behind door #4: they just don't care because catchers are irrelevant to how well a pitcher pitches.

 

i never said all catchers are basically equal, you did. re-read post 6563 in my reply to Bell. to reiterate, catchers can and do make a difference, i just think CERA is the wrong way to quantify that.

 

i would hope that Sox pitchers prefer Wong, as he is, IMHO, the best catcher on the team. and it's not even close.

[Bellhorn04]

Triston Casas is getting very beastly.

 

Dipre, you called it, man.

[mvp 78]

It's just a number. I keep bringing up McGuire's numbers with the Sox only because they are so staggeringly bad that maybe, just maybe, there's an issue he has had catching our staff. But if the team keeps playing him that indicates they think differently.

 

I don't think there's much doubt that Wong has clearly established himself to be the superior catcher. And they started giving him the lion's share of the starts pretty early in the season.

 

The biggest reason Wong is the better catcher now is the changes to the running game in 2023. Guys like McGuire won't be able to keep up going forward. It's a large reason why Nathan Hickey will have to be moved off the position.

[moonslav59]

The weird thing is that for a long time many were suggesting Wong would have to be moved off the catching position. I guess it takes a while for some to develop into good ones.

 

I remember VTek took a while.

 

The other thing is that when we got McGuire, his defense was supposed to be his strong area.

 

Catching skills have always been hard to quantify, and who knows why some pitchers do much better with one over the other. It’s likely the reasons differ, making the quantification near impossible to pinpoint. I’m not going to go back and present all the data, from CERA to OPS against, but I’ve always been 100% convinced a catcher can and does make a significant difference in the results of the pitchers he catches, beyond what he does framing, blocking and throwing.

 

Looking at the Sox pitchers with the most IP and somewhat larger sample sizes with 2 or more catchers, Vaz got worse results time and time again- some by a huge gap, like over one or 1.50 runs per game. No catcher’s bat can make up for that.

[Nick]

Triston Casas is getting very beastly.

 

Dipre, you called it, man.

 

He's now third in AL 1B with OPS of .837.

 

Meanwhile, Anthony Rizzo of Yanks in 9th place with OPS of .719.

 

Unbelievable.

[Bellhorn04]

The biggest reason Wong is the better catcher now is the changes to the running game in 2023. Guys like McGuire won't be able to keep up going forward. It's a large reason why Nathan Hickey will have to be moved off the position.

 

What about game-calling? That's kind of an X factor. There was a game after which Paxton highly praised Wong's game-calling.

[moonslav59]

He's now third in AL 1B with OPS of .837.

 

Meanwhile, Anthony Rizzo of Yanks in 9th place with OPS of .719.

 

Unbelievable.

 

Neither shocks me.

[moonslav59]

What about game-calling? That's kind of an X factor. There was a game after which Paxton highly praised Wong's game-calling.

 

I think a lot of game calling is done from the dugout, but there is factor that is not only impossible to really quantify, but also hard to even name. I’m thinking comfort level, binky, confidence builder, calm downer and on and on. It might not really even be a “skill” and could be based on something seemingly unreasonable- like maybe a pitcher just clicked with one catcher over the other. It could be how a catcher sets a target or his posture- something weird like that.

[mvp 78]

What about game-calling? That's kind of an X factor. There was a game after which Paxton highly praised Wong's game-calling.

 

Game-calling is the most nebulous of all catching skills.

[Dipre]

Game-calling is the most nebulous of all catching skills.

 

Catchers no longer call games.

[Dipre]

Triston Casas is getting very beastly.

 

Dipre, you called it, man.

 

Don't forget Duran and Yoshida.

[Maxbialystock]

A little off topic from the above but highly relevant to this season. Starting August 4, the Sox will play a game every day from August 4 through Sep 20 with exactly 2 days off, Aug 14 and Sep 7. That's 48 games in a row with 2 days off.

 

I think all those games argue strongly for beefing up the pitching, especially the rotation.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Maxbialystock

[Maxbialystock]

Don't forget Duran and Yoshida.

 

Right now I think our six most useful and productive position players--in no particular order--are Devers, Yoshida, Turner, Duran, Casas, and Wong. Dugo still has the highest WAR, 2.7, which suggests I'm an idiot, and I definitely like his defense. But his hitting right now is worrisome.

[Bellhorn04]

Catchers no longer call games.

 

Paxton said Wong called the game.

[Maxbialystock]

i never said all catchers are basically equal, you did. re-read post 6563 in my reply to Bell. to reiterate, catchers can and do make a difference, i just think CERA is the wrong way to quantify that.

 

i would hope that Sox pitchers prefer Wong, as he is, IMHO, the best catcher on the team. and it's not even close.

 

If we agree Wong is significantly better, at some point we have to consider that his effectiveness results in better pitching and better defense which must inevitably lead to fewer runs scored and something related to CERA.

 

The problem with CERA is trying to define/measure it.

 

On ESPN last night they said the Sox have the best record in MLB in July, 14-5. July is also the month when Cora has done everything possible to play Wong without wearing him out. It’s also the month of the 3 man rotation plus Pivetta. And, thankfully, lots of days off.

[Dipre]

Paxton said Wong called the game.

 

With clear instructions from the analytics department. Catcher lays down the sign, but they give him a chart of what to call.

[Dipre]

If we agree Wong is significantly better, at some point we have to consider that his effectiveness results in better pitching and better defense which must inevitably lead to fewer runs scored and something related to CERA.

 

The problem with CERA is trying to define/measure it.

 

On ESPN last night they said the Sox have the best record in MLB in July, 14-5. July is also the month when Cora has done everything possible to play Wong without wearing him out. It’s also the month of the 3 man rotation plus Pivetta. And, thankfully, lots of days off.

 

Max, you really need some improvements on your segue game.

[Bellhorn04]

With clear instructions from the analytics department. Catcher lays down the sign, but they give him a chart of what to call.

 

In-game adjustments?

[Dipre]

In-game adjustments?

 

Those all come from upstairs. In-inning though, when things crater, may be something else. But they have specific sequences to tunnel pitches and attack hitters a certain way with significant anticipation to game time.

[moonslav59]

If we agree Wong is significantly better, at some point we have to consider that his effectiveness results in better pitching and better defense which must inevitably lead to fewer runs scored and something related to CERA.

 

The problem with CERA is trying to define/measure it.

 

On ESPN last night they said the Sox have the best record in MLB in July, 14-5. July is also the month when Cora has done everything possible to play Wong without wearing him out. It’s also the month of the 3 man rotation plus Pivetta. And, thankfully, lots of days off.

 

CERA and OPS Against don't need defining. They are what they are.

 

To me, the issues are how the numbers are used, and why some big differentials exist.

 

Since many pitchers pitch almost exclusively to one catcher, which to me proves it makes a difference to the pitcher and manager who makes that call, so it's hard to count those pitchers who pitch 180 innings with one guy and 9 with the other. Looking at overall CERA numbers does not factor in who catches who way more and way less. It's next to useless, and this is why many poo-poo the stat. It's not like BA or OPS or ERA.

 

You have to look at each pitcher individually, and this creates new problems, like unbalanced or small sample sizes. You look at the numbers with each catcher and then compare the overall results. To me, the results were highly conclusive. Almost every pitcher, with large enough sample sizes with 2 or more catchers, did better with catchers not names Vaz and Swihart, of late. Some of the differentials were staggering. To just chalk it up as luck, or to throw the whole idea out, just because the reasons can't be pin-pointed, to me, is being short-sighted.

 

I've provided research many times, even going back to VTek vs his back-ups. I even did one on Posada vs his back-ups that showed that despite his great hitting, pitchers did better with his back-ups and the team often had a better winning % without him.

 

I'm 100% convinced a catcher may make a big difference, beyond his hitting, throwing, framing and blocking skills. I can't say why, but that does not mean it's not real.

 

It's best to go season by season/ pitcher by pitcher, but these career numbers are shocking:

 

Sale

2.52 AJ Pierz. (226- most with CWS)

2.79 w Leon (436 Innings)

2.87 w Wong (47)

4.08 w Vaz (132)

 

Price

2.96 Leon (204)

4.27 Vaz (360)

 

Porcello (not a big swing)

4.19 Leon (576)

4.93 Swi (122)

4.96 Vaz (211)

 

Nate

3.39 Plawecki (183)

4.64 Vaz (176)

4.90 Leon (61) kinda small sample

 

Only ERod didn't seem to care who was catching:

4.05 Leon (118)

4.18 Vaz (614)

4.44 Swi (75)

But Vaz was almost his exclusive catcher.

 

These are not cherry-picked pitchers. These are the Sox leading IP pitchers since 2014- Vaz's first year in MLB.

[Maxbialystock]

Max, you really need some improvements on your segue game.

 

You're right. Guilty as charged.

 

I think CERA or something like it is real, but also agree pitchers can have ups and downs regardless of who is catching. But, as written, you can't quite follow my argument.

 

That's why I added the ESPN comment that so far the Sox have the best record in MLB in July--14-5. That should never have been possible because throughout those 19 games Cora had (and still has) just 3 starters + Pivetta coming in from the bullpen.

 

However, it helped that McGuire was also out, so Cora was able to use Wong in 15 of those 19 games in which opposing teams scored a total of 76 runs (some of which were unearned) or 4 runs per game. To me it's impossible not to credit Wong for improved pitching--as well as winning 14 of 19 games--when the rotation was in a shambles.

 

The only thing "wrong" with those 19 games is they're a small sample. Nevertheless, I find them persuasive. More Wong means better pitching (fewer runs by opposing teams) and more wins.

[Dipre]

I also think Wong is clearly a better defender and overall player than McGuire, but CEra is terrible.

[Maxbialystock]

I also think Wong is clearly a better defender and overall player than McGuire, but CEra is terrible.

 

I've said that pitchers can have their ups and downs regardless of the catcher. So, for example, small samples of CERA can be misleading.

 

But moonslav has done a lot of research and provided some compelling data on CERA's even though he too agrees pitchers have ups and downs regardless of the catcher. I might add, however, that a good catcher can mitigate a bad game a pitcher is having.

 

What I have yet to see by anyone on the other other side of the argument--including you--is any data whatsoever on the unreliability of CERA. So, if you don't mind, could you provide some data that show catchers have very little real effect on how well a pitcher does and especially on his ERA.

[Maxbialystock]

CERA and OPS Against don't need defining. They are what they are.

 

To me, the issues are how the numbers are used, and why some big differentials exist.

 

Since many pitchers pitch almost exclusively to one catcher, which to me proves it makes a difference to the pitcher and manager who makes that call, so it's hard to count those pitchers who pitch 180 innings with one guy and 9 with the other. Looking at overall CERA numbers does not factor in who catches who way more and way less. It's next to useless, and this is why many poo-poo the stat. It's not like BA or OPS or ERA.

 

You have to look at each pitcher individually, and this creates new problems, like unbalanced or small sample sizes. You look at the numbers with each catcher and then compare the overall results. To me, the results were highly conclusive. Almost every pitcher, with large enough sample sizes with 2 or more catchers, did better with catchers not names Vaz and Swihart, of late. Some of the differentials were staggering. To just chalk it up as luck, or to throw the whole idea out, just because the reasons can't be pin-pointed, to me, is being short-sighted.

 

I've provided research many times, even going back to VTek vs his back-ups. I even did one on Posada vs his back-ups that showed that despite his great hitting, pitchers did better with his back-ups and the team often had a better winning % without him.

 

I'm 100% convinced a catcher may make a big difference, beyond his hitting, throwing, framing and blocking skills. I can't say why, but that does not mean it's not real.

 

It's best to go season by season/ pitcher by pitcher, but these career numbers are shocking:

 

Sale

2.52 AJ Pierz. (226- most with CWS)

2.79 w Leon (436 Innings)

2.87 w Wong (47)

4.08 w Vaz (132)

 

Price

2.96 Leon (204)

4.27 Vaz (360)

 

Porcello (not a big swing)

4.19 Leon (576)

4.93 Swi (122)

4.96 Vaz (211)

 

Nate

3.39 Plawecki (183)

4.64 Vaz (176)

4.90 Leon (61) kinda small sample

 

Only ERod didn't seem to care who was catching:

4.05 Leon (118)

4.18 Vaz (614)

4.44 Swi (75)

But Vaz was almost his exclusive catcher.

 

These are not cherry-picked pitchers. These are the Sox leading IP pitchers since 2014- Vaz's first year in MLB.

 

You're right. CERA numbers are real and specific. They are a given pitcher's ERA with a given catcher behind the plate.

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

I also think Wong is clearly a better defender and overall player than McGuire, but CEra is terrible.

 

One big thing Wong has going for him is he is able to talk to V-tek everyday. I doubt there's a better teacher for a catcher than V-tek.

[Maxbialystock]

One big thing Wong has going for him is he is able to talk to V-tek everyday. I doubt there's a better teacher for a catcher than V-tek.

 

Excellent point. I also think Wong is smart, which translates to being a good learner.

[Dipre]

I've said that pitchers can have their ups and downs regardless of the catcher. So, for example, small samples of CERA can be misleading.

 

But moonslav has done a lot of research and provided some compelling data on CERA's even though he too agrees pitchers have ups and downs regardless of the catcher. I might add, however, that a good catcher can mitigate a bad game a pitcher is having.

 

What I have yet to see by anyone on the other other side of the argument--including you--is any data whatsoever on the unreliability of CERA. So, if you don't mind, could you provide some data that show catchers have very little real effect on how well a pitcher does and especially on his ERA.

 

Because it's a sample issue. I'm not going to go on a deep dive regarding an issue that is common sense.

 

CERA:

 

1) Doesn't control for pitcher quality.

2) Doesn't control for standard deviation because of the varying sample sizes.

3) Doesn't account for quality of defense, which may vary on any given night.

4) Doesn't account for umpire tendency, which can greatly impact CEra on smaller samples.

5) Doesn't account for park factors.

 

There are more advanced stats that measure the impact of all of this factors, one way or the other, for pitchers. Even more advanced metrics like catcher framing are inherently flawed. You can't use those as gospel, because they have fundamental flaws, so why would you use CEra, a worse, less complete statistic, to measure a catcher's worth? I jus don't see it.

[Dipre]

You're right. CERA numbers are real and specific. They are a given pitcher's ERA with a given catcher behind the plate.

 

So do RBI's, they suck too. And the use of OPS is a good indicator of the flaws inherent to incomplete stats, that's why they created OPS+, which moon says did not need refining. Clearly it did.

[SPLENDIDSPLINTER]

Off topic:

 

Ohtani just pitched a complete game shut out. His 1st complete game of his MLB career. However, to prove that he is human, he went 0-5 at the plate.

[Bellhorn04]

Off topic:

 

Ohtani just pitched a complete game shut out. His 1st complete game of his MLB career. However, to prove that he is human, he went 0-5 at the plate.

 

Might be interesting to see his offensive numbers when he pitches vs. when he doesn't.